This blog is about spiritual awakening, maps and stages, the blinding effects of our strong momentum/conditioning (karmic propensities), view, realization, experience, etc. If you're new here, I recommend going through the 'Must Reads' articles (see sidebar). For discussions you are welcome to join the Awakening to Reality Facebook group

Translate

Ads 300 x 600

Recent Posts

Found an old e-mail dated 2012. I should add that the authorship does not concern me the slightest, as I find some of those Mahayana Sutras to be deeply profound in wisdom and very resonating irregardless of who wrote them.

I thought that some of the sutras were by advanced practicioners those who became bodhisatvas after the death of the Buddha.

Sure,
but in Mahāyāna the "Buddha" is not relegated to the historical figure,
Śākyamuni, and in fact the Mahāyāna sūtras state that the "Buddha"
should not be seen as name and form at all. Which means the definition
of the Buddha is not limited to the historical figure.

For
this reason "buddhavacana" or "the word of the Buddha" in Mahāyāna
becomes whatever is "said well", meaning an exposition that accords with
the fundamental principles of karma, rebirth, dependent origination,
bodhicitta, etc.

This is because the
Buddha is not name and form, meaning the Buddha is not the rūpakāya, but
rather the Buddha is the nature of your mind, the dharmakāya.

Someone asked me,

"Hi,

Unfortunately we have not talked before. I was just
surfing around until I

chanced upon this blog. I've been trying to study
Buddhism for a long time

now. A lot of things have bothered me. When I do have a
chance to approach

any reverend to ask questions, they usually see me as
some sort of "evil

heretic". So I never get answers that I wished to
get. To the reverends,

they just want to keep questions as simple as possible.
So in my search for

knowledge, I've chanced upon your blog.

I don't really understand what you are writing because
there are a lot of

- do take some time to read this I believe you will get
something out of it.

Even though it is a bit lengthy.

I have not yet read 印顺法师's (Ven. Yin Shun) work, but intend to read it in
future (I have a

list of to-read books but not enough time to go through
all yet).

唯识(Yogacara) deals more on how all manifestations are manifestation of consciousness.

中观 (Madhyamaka)
deals more with emptiness. In certain schools like Tibetan Buddhism,

there is usually a 'picking out' of elements from wei-shi
(consciousness

only, yogacara) and zhong guan (madhyamika) in their
teachings. In other

words, they do teach elements from both systems. For
example they may teach

the eight streams of consciousness in yogacara, and they
also teach

emptiness of madhyamika. It all depends on each
individual teacher. But I

think there are areas of yogacara and madhyamika that can
complement each

other without contradiction.

However, most Tibetan systems consider Madhyamika a
higher view. Why?

Because Yogacara can result in a slight reification of
consciousness, in

Yogacara teaching they still consider consciousness as
having some true

existence. In Madhyamika, even consciousness or mind is
completely empty [of

inherent existence]. It does not subsume everything to be
an inherently

existing consciousness, it merely removes the view of a
reified inherent

existence of everything including consciousness. So
Madhyamika is considered

a more thorough deconstruction of inherent view, more
thorough in emptiness.

I believe 印顺法师 (Ven. Yin Shun) is also inclined towards Madhyamika or so I heard.

Now in China, in the beginning there were many schools of
Mahayana but in

the later development of Buddhism in China, only Pure
Land and Ch'an is left

as the prominent schools of Chinese Mahayana. Why?
Because the Chinese are a

more practical bunch. Unlike the Tibetans, they do not
like complex

philosophical systems like Yogacara and Madhyamika, so
they founded a school

'not dependent on speech and words' - that is the Zen or
Ch'an school of

Buddhism. This school emphasizes more on the direct
realization of one's

true nature. You can say there are elements of influence
especially of the

yogacara and tathagatagarbha doctrines on Zen teachings,
but most of all it

has more emphasis on direct non-conceptual realization of
one's Intrinsic

Awareness or Buddha-nature, rather than deeply going into
the doctrines and

philosophies as taught in the scriptures (not saying
however that Chinese

Mahayana don't read scriptures, it is just that their
practice has a

different emphasis). Ch'an is somewhat (not completely)
similar to the

Dzogchen and Mahamudra systems of Tibetan Buddhism.

p.s. if you're on Facebook you can join my group 'Dharma
Connection', it's a

small discussion board."

He then asked me,

"Hi,

I constantly question the validity of certain sutra. For
example, in

《地藏菩薩本願經》,
there are certain points which made me question whether this is a sutra that's
spoken by the Buddha. First, it talks about expounding the Mahayana's sutra. At
the time of the Buddha, there's no differentiation between Therevada, Mahayana,
Vinayana, e.t.c So why did the Buddha talk about Mahayana in this sutra. So for
me, I think this sutra is a late addition to the Buddhist text and was not the
teaching of the Buddha. There are lots of other contradictions in it as
well.... So I raised these questions to the Venerable and most of them said
that it's "widely accepted". For me, I believe that all sutra have to
fulfill the 3 dharma seals. This sutra, in my opinion, does not fulfill the 3
dharma seals. Then the venerable told me that some famous venerable cried after
reading this sutra and wanted to dedicate his life to expound this sutra. TO
me, just because a person cried, doesn't make this sutra a real sutra.
Basically, I'm a heretic because I do not just accept it as it is....

I do not have facebook. I'm just a lost soul... I am so
terribly lost that I think I don't even know what to ask and where to begin...."

I replied,

"Why do you feel that 地藏菩薩本願經 (Ksitigarbha Sutra) does not accord with the three
dharma seals?

Of course, most Mahayana teachers generally do not accept
this view or are not aware of the accepted view of the academic community.
However generally most or almost all academics (such as Loppon Namdrol who is a
trained academic/dharma teacher/practitioner from the Mahayana/Vajrayana
tradition) do not treat Mahayana sutras as being necessarily the historical
teachings of the physical dimension of Shakyamuni Buddha. We do not find
evidence that it is the physical spoken words. The most we could say is that
they can be teachings from the Buddhas in the spiritual dimensions within
visions of enlightened masters, e.g. the Sambhogakaya.

I still find great wisdom from Mahayana sutras regardless
of its origins. As Thusness (who had great respect for Mahayana sutras)
commented on the Lankavatara Sutra - regardless of its origins, the words of
this sutra must have come from the hands of an enlightened being. Why? If you
are enlightened and you read those texts you will find that it experientially
accords with your realization, it accords with Dharma. That to me is more
important than its origins.

We should keep this in mind: "That is completely
irrelevent to the quality of the teaching of this or that sutra. One's criteria
ought not be authorship, but wisdom." - Loppon Namdrol

Mahayana and Vajrayana tradition emphasizes on the spirit
of the words rather than necessarily teaching only the orthodox and original
words of Buddha. That would be the Theravada tradition.

I personally find great wisdom in all three traditions
Theravada Mahayana and Vajrayana, and we should not let authorship affect too
much of our judgment of an ancient text.

...

(continued)

By the way after my telling you all these, it may not be
wise to go challenging the venerables on the origins of Mahayana sutras, etc.
Just let it be. It is enough that you know about it... it is not necessary to
go telling the Mahayana community otherwise you will forever be considered
heretical, haha. Personally I frequent a Mahayana center and I have never for
once challenged them with regards to their orthodoxy even though I may have my
own opinion. Why? It is not so important. Regardless of whether it is from
physical dimension of Buddha or the late master's spiritual visions of Buddha
etc, the essence of dharma is more important.

It is not so important who said what. It is more
important that you grasp the essence of the Dharma and have correct practice,
eventually get enlightened and realize your true nature. Then actualize that
wisdom in your daily life.

As set forth by His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama, Tenzin
Gyamtso, the four reliances are:

1. "Do not rely on the person but on the doctrine.

2. Then, with respect to the doctrine, rely not on the
word [or words] but on the meaning.

3. Then, with respect to the meaning, rely not on the
interpretable meaning but on the definitive meaning.

4. And with respect to the definitive meaning, rely not
on ordinary consciousness but on an exalted wisdom consciousness." If one
understands consciousness always to be dualistic and awareness to be
non-dualistic, then this last reliance should read "exalted wisdom
awareness.""

=============

Excerpts from sgforums:

Some things for your consideration. I found the clarifications by
Loppon Namdrol (a very knowledgeable and experienced
scholar/yogi/teacher who I and Thusness considers to be highly
enlightened) to be enlightening.
Note: the names here are display names of E-Sangha members.

Sonam Wangchug:

This has been bothering me lately so I figured i'd post a topic about it.

Many people say that the historical Shakyamuni buddha did not teach mahayana sutras or vajrayana tantras.Jigme Phuntsok:
Yes, there are no record of any Mahayana sutras until much later,
but this is because the Mahayana sutras were passed on strictly orally
at first and not written down until later.Namdrol:
That's a nice fantasy, but that is all it is.Jigme Phuntsok:

Then how do you account for the presence of Mahayana-like
doctrines in the Mahasangikas who were present in large numbers at the
time of the early councils?Namdrol:
Which Mahayana like doctrines did you have in mind? Bodhicitta,
great compassion, ten bodhisattva stages, three kayas, emptiness of
persons and things and so on?Jigme Phuntsok:
It is my understanding that the Mahasangikas taught a nascent form
of the Buddha-nature doctrine which included teachings on the
permanence of the Buddha, the primordial presence of countless
qualities within the Buddha-nature; as well as the emptiness of all
dharmas.Namdrol:

Did you have a sutra in mind that they taught these things in? Or is this a speculation?xabir2005 (me):
Just to clarify: in your understanding, all Mahayana and Vajrayana sutras/tantras come from realized masters other than Buddha?Namdrol:
Yup.
NLondro:
Hi Namdrol,

Did you not once threaten to ban a person on
this forum for asserting that the Mahayana Sutras and the Pali Canon
were not the actual words of the Buddha?

LodroNamdrol:
Nope. Incidentally, a realized master is a Buddha. So they can represent the Buddha.

NPaljor:
As far as I know, only a fully enlighten Buddha (samyaksambuddha)
endowed with the ten power, can turn the wheel of dharma. Enlighten
masters like Nagarjuna, Tilopa, Naropa, Milarepa, Asanga... can
elaborate and comment on the Buddha's words, their spoken words are in
accord with the dharma yet not having the same status as "Sutra", which
only reserved for the Buddha. Buddha Vajradhara, Vairochana,
Samantabadhra are different manifestations of Sakyamuni Buddha in pure
realm.

P.Namdrol:

By come from, Paljor, we mean in pure visions, etc. But we do not need to confuse pure visions with empirical history.

NPaljor:
The Buddha may not be around in nirmanakaya for us but he's
always available to bodhisattvas (enlighten masters) in Sambogakaya
(pure realm).

P.Namdrol:
Yes, that is correct, that is why we do not need to indulge in
historical literalism to account for the origin of Mahayana and
Vajrayana teachings.

NPaljor:
The nirmanakaya Buddha (historical Buddha) is as important as
Sambogakaya Buddha, just as conventional reality is as important as
ultimate reallity as declared by Nagarjuna.

I know that Sakyapas
tent to emphasize the important of Sambogakaya but there's no need to
ignore the important of nirmanakaya Buddha, they are the same: for the
benefit oa all sentient beings.

P.Namdrol:
Actually, this is not so. According to
Gorampa for example, the Sambhogakaya and the Nirmanakaya have the same
relationship as an illusionist and his illusion.

But that is
really not so germane here. What is germane when considering history is
the empirical record. And the empirical record simply does not support
the notion that Mahayana was taught while Gotama Buddha walked this
earth. This does not mean that Mahayana does not have a valid origin --
it does, as I have explained. It is in the pure visions of later
masters who came after the Buddha and who wrote down their visions of
Buddha teaching various teachings in various places.

Now I
don't know about what you think, but I am pretty sure that the number
of monks who were said to be present on the summit of Vulture peak when
the Buddha was teaching the Lotus Sutra, for example, cannot actually
fit there. It is not a large place.

NPaljor:
If the house of Vimalakirti was big enough for 32 hundred thousands
thrones, and these thrones each measured 42 hundred thousands league in
height, and his house didn't increase in size, nor get crowded, then I
think the vulture peak can be as vast as space to accomodate the number
of monks, humans, non-humans, etc... Now why people who have "pure
vision" should create something so "untrue" and "illogical", shouldn't
that go against the dharma? Or is there something that is beyond
intellectual elaboration?
P.Namdrol:
It does not go against the Dharma, it means that the author of
the sutra who was describing the setting was making a didactic point.

N

An Eternal Now

9 Oct 09, 13:12

Old posts by Namdrol:
"The Mahayana sutras are recorded words of Buddha, the words of
Buddha recorded from the visions of Indian masters from 100 BCE
onwards, just as the Pali suttas are the words of Indian masters
recorded when they saw the Buddha between roughly 460 BCE-400
BCE."
.
.
Now with regards to Tantras (of Vajrayana):
"Tantras in general have always had a revealed source, and for
the most part have never sought authorship by the historical Buddha
as a criteria for their validity-- the tantras come from Oddiyana,
where they are kept by Dakini guardians. Indian Mahasiddhas would
visit there, and recover texts to bring back to India, for example,
Virupa recovered the Raktayamari cycle from there.

Certainly some major tantras (Kalachakra, Guhyasamaja, Hevajra,
lower tantra in general) have been thought to have been taught by
the historical Buddha by some Tibetan exegetes, but there are whole
classes of tantras considered to have never been taught by
Shakyamuni Buddha, but rather by Samhogakaya manifestations. For
this reason, tantras continue to be produced (albeit they are
completely unoriginal in content) and sutras have not continued to
be reproduced."

More quotations from "Loppon Namdrol":
"I take the position that tantric texts were gradually written
down beginning in the sixth to seventh century based on the
experiences of Buddhist masters. I don't see much difference
between "created" and "revealed".

One day these texts did not exist, the next day they did--
authorship is not an issue for me, that is
whether they are the produce of a Buddha or a master putting words
in a Buddha's mouth does not matter-- I think the system is highly
effective whatever its origin. ""That is
completely irrelevent to the quality of the teaching of this or
that sutra. One's criteria ought not be authorship, but wisdom."

A nice summary on the development of teachings by Ven. Hui-Feng:

Before explaining how the sukha-tathagatagarbhikas ( ) explain the "apparent conflict", and Chan too, let's take a few steps back.

Even
in the early sutras, there is the idea of certain teachings as being
"fully drawn out" (nitartha), and others as "yet to be drawn out"
(neyartha). We could say, "explicit" and "implicit". However, at first,
which were which was not stated.

So, there were some "apparent
conflicts" quite early on. The biggest by far was that of the
"pudgala", which was kind of a synonym for "atman". In some sutras the
Buddha says things like "the pudgala does this and that", "the pudgala
is reborn in some place", and so forth; and in other sutras, the Buddha
states that "there is no atman, no pudgala, no sattva..." and so forth.

Now, one school, the Pudgalavadins, tried to come up with a
theory that kept all teachings on a similar "truth" level. They ended
up with an "expressible pudgala", which was rather dubious. Still, they
tended to fall towards the extreme of eternalism, rather than
annihilism. So, although neither are correct, the former is better than
the latter (see my signature).

The other schools, notably the
Abhidharma groups, came up with the "dharma theory", which broke
everything down into irreducible parts, each of which was impermanent,
dissatisfactory and not self (and empty too). Now, based on a group of
these irreducible dharmas, one could have a designation, but these
desigations / names, etc. were not real per se. Classic example: The
five aggregates are real, the "person" is a designation based on the
aggregates.

They then used this theory to explain the apparent
contradiction, ie. that teachings that spoke of a "pudgala", "atman",
etc. were actually just "conventional designations" and thus "implicit"
and "to be fully drawn out", whereas thos that taught in terms of
"dharmas", were "ultimate teachings" and "already fully drawn out".
(I've an essay in my Blog, see signature, on this one if you want more
details.)

To seal this, the Abhidharma literature which is
slightly later than the sutras almost always tries to use the "dharma"
/ "ultimate" terminology. Therefore, a bunch of later explanatory
literature wins the day.

But, there were still some problems
with this Abhidharma dharma-theory. In particular, the tendency towards
explaining these irreducible dharmas as somehow substantial. In fact,
even up to the point of the Sarvastivada considering dharmas as
themselves little atman, etc. (Remember, the Sarvastivada is from a
school closely related to the Pudgalavadins.) Again, a slight leaning
towards eternalism.

Now, another body of literature starts to
appear, ie. the Mahayana sutras. Once again, they have the advantage of
being the latest texts, so they can make arguments against all the
earlier material, and consolidate a complete systematic view. The
emphasis is on the fact that even these so-called Dharmas are empty
too, not just empty of an atman / pudgala, but empty of any sort of
substantiality, eternality, and so forth.

But, again, this has
the tendency towards nihilism in the eyes of some. So, yet another body
of literature starts to appear. Well, two, actually. These are the
Yogacara literature, stemming from the Sarvastivadins. And, the
Tathagatagarbha literature.

Because they are now the newest
stuff, they can explicity within the text themselves say things like
"Oh, the XXX sutra is just a provisional teaching, this sutra that you
are reading now is the real, true and ultimate teaching!!" And, of
course, the XXX sutra doesn't say anything to the contrary - because
this new Tathagatagarbha sutra didn't even exist at the time to be
refuted!!

Every new batch of literature that came out stated
that it (and usually, only it), was the "explicit" and ultimate
teaching, etc. etc. and that everything that had come before was merely
provisional.

In India, this was nitartha versus neyartha. But
in China, slightly different. The Chinese for a start received a lot of
their Buddhism "all at once", or, at least in a quite different order
at first to the Indians. ie. they got Abhidharma stuff first, then some
Mahayana stuff, and then the Agama sutras, and then mostly Mahayana
stuff with some later commentaries of Abhidharma and Mahayana.

So,
mainly starting from Tiantai Zhiyi, they started to make
"doxographies", and try to put the various sutras in order - of time,
and importance. Of course, they considered (almost) every text that had
"Thus have I heard..." to be all taught during the Buddha's time.
However, because the later texts claimed to be more ultimate, etc. they
ended up being put later in the Buddha's career.

eg. whereas
modern scholars would say that the range of sutras, early and Mahayana,
took place over about 8 centuries, Zhiyi crammed them all within the
life time of Sakyamuni. First, the Avatamsaka, then the Agamas, then
the Prajnaparamita, then the Vaipulyas (other Mahayana sutras), then
the Lotus Sutra and finally the Mahayana Parinirvana Sutra.

Actually,
the Mahayana Parinirvana Sutra (not to be confused with the early
Parinirvana Sutra) was a genius idea! If they set the sutra at the
parinirvana of the Buddha, then obviously it would have to be the
Buddhas last (and thus ultimate) teaching! And yes, this was a
Tathagatagarbha text.

All these were already translated, and
the Tiantai doxography already in place, by the time that Chan came on
the scene. So, the Mahayana sutras, especially the Tathagatagarbha
sutras, were supreme. For Chan at first, the Lankavatara Sutra was
extremely important, but also the Parinirvana, etc. Lotus, etc.

During
the first few generations of Chan, they mainly used these Mahayana
sutras as the basis of their practice. Bodhidharma cites them, so do
Daoxin, Hongren and Huineng. It's called "based on the scripture,
realize the mind / truth". This later came to be called "Ruali Chan",
"rulai" being the translation of "tathagata", referring to the
Tathagatagarbha sutras.

Later, in the late Tang and Song, etc.
there was a move towards "patriarch Chan". Though the Sutra content was
there, it was less obvious, and there was usage of techniques like
"silent illlumination", "word/thought watching", etc. Still, most of
these were based around later Mahayana thought, especially
Tathagatagarbha. There were some exceptions, but they were minor.

It
was in this later period that Chan goes to Japan and we have Zen. Also,
a lot of Zen in Japan is Tendai influenced, so the notion of the
importance of the Lotus Sutra and Parinirvana Sutra is perhaps even
stronger than in China.

These Chan and Zen boys and girls were
largely not scholars by this stage. Thus, where the Indian pandits were
quickly putting Tathagatagarbha at the bottom end of their doctrinal
scale of "which teaching is ultimate", subsuming it under a Madhyamaka
(and Yogacara) over-system, the Chinese (and Japanese) did not. Nobody
was really going around noting that "Hey, these buddhists are talking
like the Vedantins or Brahmins!?", because there weren't (m)any
Brahmins in China! Everything Indian got subsumed into the Buddhist
fold.

Also, around the late Tang, the routes to India were not
as open, and so the latest Indian explanations did not make it to
China. Unlike in Tibet, which is the time when Buddhism started there.
Their Tathagatagarbha and Yogacara was already largely the later,
pre-packaged in Madhyamaka outfit version, and so it stayed.

(If only I could usually write a 1000 word essay so quickly! hahahahaha!)

Huifeng

..........

Namdrol:
In terms of the origin and evolution of Buddhist texts? No. NÄ�gÄ�rjuna
did not recover the PrajÃ±Ä�paramita SÅ«tras from sea monsters off of
the coast of Andra Pradesh, as romantic as that might sound. Likewise,
Buddha did not teach Abhidhamma pitika in one session to the gods in the
thirty three heavens, as romantic as that sounds.
One of the nice things about Buddhist texts, especially MahÄ�yÄ�na texts
is that one can study their evolution. Why? Becauase they were
translated into different languages over the period of a thousand years.
How is the possible? For two reasons -- we have the Chinese canon and
the Tibetan canon.
Buddhist sutras in the Chinese canon clearly show textual development
over the many recensions of their translations. The Tibetan forms of
these sutras are always in more mature forms than the earlier Chinese
translations. And interestingly enough, the surviving Sanskrit copies of
many sutras and tantras too show evidence of textual development
subsequent to their translations into Tibetan. We can see this type of
development even between translations from the Imperial period and the
so called "later translation period" which begins with Rinchen Zangpo in
the late tenth century.
Another thing we notice with Bon texts is that their orthography is
solely post Ralpachen i.e. post 840 or so. In other words, we do not
find the kinds of archaic spellings in Bon canonical texts in general
(such as the Zer mig, etc) that one would expect to find in ancient,
pre-Buddhist texts.
So you can speculate all you like about Ancient Buddhas in mythical
kingdoms writing down all the Buddhist sutras in independent form and
depositing them in Tibet in the some prehistorical period. But the
simple fact of the matter is that texts are plastic culture, they are
susceptible to evolution and emendation, and in the case of Buddhist
texts, these emendations are trackable to a very large degree until the
Chinese and Tibetans stopped translating Indic texts. Of course, even in
Tibetan Buddhist treasure literature one can find clear evolution and
consolidation of language and terminology and very little in the way of
truly archaic spellings, etc., spellings we have actual evidence of from
texts which clearly date to that time period.
I think you ought to make yourself more useful, and go get a PhD in
Tibetan studies somewhere, like Oslo - with Per Kvarne, who has a Bon
studies program, university level. Then you can be really, truly
insufferable as only academics can be.
Otherwise, you should study Tibetan Medicine, since you stated you
wanted to be a healer. There are a bunch of Bon doctors in Nepal. Go
study with them.
N
.........
More: http://sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/378306 - Are Mahayana
Sutras Taught by Buddha?